"To many politicians," explained Rep. Ron Paul, the Republican Texan libertarian congressional loner, "the American government is America," thus explaining why every war or national "emergency" creates a national fervor for a draft. "Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism," said Paul after Rep. Charles Rangel tried recently to reintroduce a draft, "when really it represents collectivism and involuntary servitude." For whatever reasons, including opposition to the Iraq death trap, most Americans have for now turned against a draft and its illegitimate child, compulsory national service for all eighteen year olds (girls and gays too?) which Gold correctly described in a 2004 article in Washington Law & Politics as a "kind of allegedly desirable work done via the creation of a monstrous new teenager-herding bureaucracy."

When Jimmy Carter, intimidated by neoconservatives for being soft on Communism, foolishly reintroduced draft registration to "send a signal" to the Russians after their invasion of Afghanistan it had no effect on Moscow. Within ten years the Soviet Union would collapse of its own incompetence and corruption, none of which had anything to do with draft registration (which because of bureaucratic lethargy and governmental stupidity, still continues wasting taxpayer money). To those in out of Washington still promoting a draft in the hope of deterring other "axis of evil" nations, the suggestion, Gold believes, is highly debatable.

No draft is fair. Nor will many want to serve in Iraq, Iran, North Korea or anywhere else without knowing why. No dove, Gold a onetime Marine officer (and "disaffected conservative") who earned a Ph.D. in history from Georgetown and writes about national security issues, recognizes the serious problems whenever America has resorted to conscription.

Four million Americans turn eighteen every year. Should the current
lottery system ever be utilized, how could a draft of say, 50,000
annually, be justified when all the rest are free to go about their
civilian lives? No congressional son was drafted during Vietnam and
virtually none of their kids – as well as in the executive branch – are
in the active military today. The same favoritism and deference to
influence and wealth will certainly prevail in any future draft. Anyone
with political contacts and family connections will always be able to
avoid active military duty, or if not, receive plum jobs. What a draft
does is simply encourage Washington’s homebound hawks.

For too many conservatives another draft means recapturing the mythical
ethos of WWII and the pre-sixties. In that imaginary Eden, there was no
racial or religious discrimination, women knew their place, support for
tyrants abroad was justified in the name of fighting Communism and
young men called to the colors went willingly and patriotically (I went
when drafted, but neither willingly nor patriotically, nor did any
draftee with whom I served). People, Gold acutely comments, need a
"good enough reason" to go to serve in the military.

In his 2004 article he argued against a draft "save in extremis,"
though that phrase is too vague. The way to avoid conscription is to
avoid unnecessary wars and think twice about sending our men and women
into battle in the name of "freedom and democracy" or another "war to
end all wars." Interventionists falsely call this "isolationism" but is
it not a willingness to adopt a sane foreign policy that encourages
peaceful, live and let live relations, while courting and finding
common ground culturally, economically and diplomatically with
potential rivals? It may not always work but it can’t be worse than
America’s historic addiction to war and intervention. Philip Gold is
right. Another draft is a mindless idea in a very troubled time.